Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Characterizing urban butterfly populations: the case for purposive point-count surveys

  • Published:
Urban Ecosystems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Developing effective butterfly monitoring strategies is key to understanding how butterflies interact with urban environments, and, in turn, to developing local conservation practices. We investigated two urban habitat types (public gardens and restored/reconstructed prairies) and compared three survey methods (Pollard transects, purposive point counts, and random point counts) to determine which was most productive for detecting butterflies and assessing family diversity. We conducted 66 butterfly surveys by using each method (198 total) from May through September in 2015 and 2016 at six sites (three public gardens and three prairies) in Ames, Ankeny and Des Moines, Iowa. All survey methods were used on 11 sampling dates at each site. Overall, we observed 2,227 butterflies representing 38 species: 1,076 in public gardens and 1,151 in prairie areas. We used a smaller data set standardized for survey effort, including 1,361 of these sightings, to compare survey methods and habitat types. Although there were no significant differences in number of butterfly sightings between the two habitats, more sightings (798) were documented by using purposive point counts when compared to Pollard transects (297) or random point counts (266) (for both comparisons, p < 0.0001). Occupancy modeling also indicated that purposive point counts were most effective in detecting certain species of butterflies, most notably those within the Pieridae (whites, sulphurs) and Papilionidae (swallowtails). We conclude that public gardens and restored/reconstructed prairies in urban settings can provide important butterfly habitat, and that purposive point-count surveys are most effective for detecting butterflies in these relatively small-scale landscape features.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Akaike H (1974) A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Trans Auto Control 19:716–723

    Google Scholar 

  • Alcock J (1994) Alternative mate-locating tactics in Chlosyne californica (Lepidoptera, Nymphalidae). Ethology 97:103–118

    Google Scholar 

  • Battin J (2004) When good animals love bad habitats: ecological traps and the conservation of animal populations. Conserv Biol 18:1482–1491

    Google Scholar 

  • Bitzer RJ, Shaw KC (1979) Territorial behavior of the red admiral, Vanessa atalanta (L.) (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). J Res Lepid 18:36–49

    Google Scholar 

  • Blair RB (1999) Birds and butterflies along an urban gradient: surrogate taxa for assessing biodiversity? Ecol Appl 9:164–170

    Google Scholar 

  • Bolund P, Hunhammar S (1999) Ecosystem services in urban areas. Ecol Econ 29:293–301

    Google Scholar 

  • Botham MS, Fernandez-Ploquin EC, Brereton T, Harrower CA, Roy DB, Heard MS (2015) Lepidoptera communities across an agricultural gradient: how important are habitat area and habitat diversity in supporting high diversity? J Insect Conserv 19:403–420

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown JA, Boyce MS (1998) Line transect sampling of Karner blue butterflies (Lycaeides melissa samuelis). Environ Ecol Stat 5:81–91

    Google Scholar 

  • Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach, 2nd edn. Springer-Verlag, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Cameron SA, Lozier JD, Strange JP, Koch JB, Cordes N, Solter LF, Griswold TL (2011) Patterns of widespread decline in north American bumblebees. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108:662–667

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Carneiro E, Mielke OHH, Casagrande MM, Fiedler K (2014) Skipper richness (Hesperiidae) along elevational gradients in Brazilian Atlantic forest. Neotrop Ent 43:27–38

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Clark PJ, Reed JM, Chew FS (2007) Effects of urbanization on butterfly species richness, guild structure, and rarity. Urban Ecosyst 10:321–337

    Google Scholar 

  • Collier N, Mackay DA, Benkendorff K, Austin AD, Carhew SM (2006) Butterfly communities in south Australian urban reserves: estimating abundance and diversity using the Pollard walk. Austral Ecol 31:282–290

    Google Scholar 

  • Collinge SK, Prudic KL, Oltver AC (2003) Effects of local habitat characteristics and landscape context on grassland butterfly diversity. Conserv Biol 17:178–187

    Google Scholar 

  • Concepción ED, Moretti M, Altermatt F, Nobis MP, Obrist MK (2015) Impacts of urbanisation on biodiversity: the role of species mobility, degree of specialisation and spatial scale. Oikos 124:1571–1582

    Google Scholar 

  • Concepción ED, Obrist MK, Moretti M, Altermatt F, Baur B, Nobis MP (2016) Impacts of urban sprawl on species richness of plants, butterflies, gastropods and birds: not only built-up area matters. Urban Ecosyst 19:225–242

    Google Scholar 

  • Debinski DM, Kelly L (1998) Decline of Iowa populations of the regal fritillary (Speyeria idalia). J Iowa Acad Sci 105:16–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Delaney JT, Jokela K, Debinski DM (2015) Seasonal succession of pollinator floral resources in four grassland types in the tallgrass prairie ecoregion. Ecosphere 6(11):1–14

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennis EB, Morgan BJT, Roy DB, Brereton TM (2017) Urban indicators for UK butterflies. Ecol Indic 76:184–193

    Google Scholar 

  • Di Mauro D, Dietz T, Rockwood L (2007) Determining the effect of urbanization on generalist butterfly species diversity in butterfly gardens. Urban Ecosyst 10:427–439

    Google Scholar 

  • Dirzo R, Young HS, Galetti M, Ceballos G, Isaac NJ, Collen B (2014) Defaunation in the anthropocene. Science 345:401–406

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • ESRI (2015) ArcGIS desktop: release 10.1 Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands, CA

  • ESRI (2016) ArcGIS desktop: release 10.2 Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands, CA

  • Gallant AG, Sadinski W, Roth MF, Rewa CA (2011) Changes in historical Iowa land cover as context for assessing the environmental benefits of current and future conservation efforts on agricultural land. J Soil Water Cons 66(3):67–77

    Google Scholar 

  • Giuliano W, Accamando A, McAdams E (2004) Lepidoptera-habitat relationships in urban parks. Urban Ecosyst 7:361–370

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardy PB, Dennis RL (1999) The impact of urban development on butterflies within a city region. Biodivers Conserv 8:1261–1279

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartzler RG (2010) Reduction in common milkweed (Asclepias syriaca) occurrence in Iowa cropland from 1999 to 2009. Crop Prot 29:1542–1544

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartzler RG, Buhler DD (2000) Occurrence of common milkweed (Asclepias syriaca) in cropland and adjacent areas. Crop Prot 19:363–366

    Google Scholar 

  • Henry EH, Haddad NM, Wilson J, Hughes P, Gardner B (2015) Point-count methods to monitor butterfly populations when traditional methods fail: a case study with Miami blue butterfly. J Insect Conserv 19:519–529

    Google Scholar 

  • Houseal G, Smith D (2000) Source-identified seed: the Iowa roadside experience. Ecol Rest 18:173–183

    Google Scholar 

  • Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) (2006) Butterfly monitoring protocol. In: Iowa multiple species inventory and monitoring program technical manual, pp 65–70

    Google Scholar 

  • Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) (2007) Securing a future for fish and wildlife: The Iowa wildlife action plan. Available at IDNR, www.iowadnr.gov/Environment/WildlifeStewardship/IowaWildlifeActionPlan (Accessed 28 October 2014)

  • Iowa State University (ISU) Extension (2016) Crops and land use: statewide data. Available at ISU Extension, https://www.extension.iastate.edu/soils/crop-and-land-use-statewide-data (Accessed 11 July 2017)

  • Isaac NJB, Cruickshanks KL, Weddle AM, Marcus Rowcliffe J, Brereton TM, Dennis RLH, Shuker DM, Thomas CD (2011) Distance sampling and the challenge of monitoring butterfly populations. Methods Ecol Evol 2:585–594

    Google Scholar 

  • Kadlec T, Benes J, Jarosik V, Konvicka M (2008) Revisiting urban refuges: changes of butterfly and burnet fauna in Prague reserves over three decades. Landsc Urban Plann 85:1–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Kéry M, Plattner M (2007) Species richness estimation and determinants of species detectability in butterfly monitoring programmes. Ecol Entomol 32:53–61

    Google Scholar 

  • Kral K, Harmon J, Limb R, Hovick T (2018) Improving our science: the evolution of butterfly sampling and surveying methods over time. J Insect Conserv 22:1–14

    Google Scholar 

  • Laake, JL (2013) RMark: An R interface for analysis of capture-recapture data with MARK. AFSC Proc Rep 2013–01, 25 p. Alaska Fish. Sci. Cent., NOAA, Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv., Seattle, WA

  • MacKenzie DI, Nichols JD, Lachman GB, Droege S, Royle JA, Langtimm CA (2002) Estimating site occupancy rates when detection probabilities are less than one. Ecology 83:2248–2255

    Google Scholar 

  • Maes D, Van Dyck H (2001) Butterfly diversity loss in Flanders (North Belgium): Europe’s worst case scenario? Biol Conserv 99:263–276

    Google Scholar 

  • Matteson KC, Langellotto G (2010) Determinants of inner city butterfly and bee species richness. Urban Ecosyst 13:333–347

    Google Scholar 

  • Matteson KC, Grace JB, Minor ES (2013) Direct and indirect effects of land use on floral resources and flower-visiting insects across an urban landscape. Oikos 122:682–694

    Google Scholar 

  • McKinney M (2008) Effects of urbanization on species richness: a review of plants and animals. Urban Ecosyst 11:1573–1642

    Google Scholar 

  • Menninger HL, Palmer MA (2006) Restoring ecological communities: from theory to practice. In: Falk DA, Palmer MA, Zedler JB (eds) Foundations of restoration ecology. Island Press, Washington, D.C., pp 88–112

    Google Scholar 

  • Moranz RA, Debinski DM, McGranahan DA, Engle DM, Miller JR (2012) Untangling the effects of fire, grazing, and land-use legacies on grassland butterfly communities. Biodivers Conserv 21:2719–2746

    Google Scholar 

  • Myers MC, Hoksch BJ, Mason JT (2012) Butterfly response to floral resources during early establishment at a heterogeneous prairie biomass production site in Iowa, USA. J Insect Conserv 16:457–472

    Google Scholar 

  • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (2017) National Centers for Environmental Information – U.S. Agricultural Belts. Accessed at: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/maps/us-ag-belts.php, 11/20/2017

  • Öckinger E, Dannestam Å, Smith HG (2009) The importance of fragmentation and habitat quality of urban grasslands for butterfly diversity. Landsc Urban Plann 93:31–37

    Google Scholar 

  • Panzer R, Gnaedinger K, Derkovitz G (2010) The prevalence and status of conservative prairie and sand savanna insects in the Chicago wilderness region. Nat Areas J 1:73–81

    Google Scholar 

  • Pellet J (2008) Seasonal variation in detectability of butterflies surveyed with Pollard walks. J Insect Conserv 12:155–162

    Google Scholar 

  • Pleasants JM, Zalucki MP, Oberhauser KS, Brower LP, Taylor OR, Thogmartin WE (2017) Interpreting surveys to estimate the size of the monarch butterfly population: pitfalls and prospects. PLoS ONE 12(7): e0181245Pollard E (1977) a method for assessing changes in the abundance of butterflies. Biol Conserv 12:115–134

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollard E, Yates T (1994) Monitoring butterflies for ecology and conservation: the British monitoring scheme. Chapman & Hall, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Posa MRC, Sodhi NS (2006) Effects of anthropogenic land use on forest birds and butterflies in Subic Bay, Philippines. Biol Conserv 129:256–270

    Google Scholar 

  • R Core Team (2013) R (Version 3.0.2): A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria

  • Reeder KF, Debinski DM, Danielson BJ (2005) Factors affecting butterfly use of filter strips in Midwestern USA. Agric Ecosyst Environ 109:40–47

    Google Scholar 

  • Ries LD, Debinski DM, Wieland M (2001) Conservation value of roadside prairie restoration to butterfly communities. Conserv Biol 15:401–411

    Google Scholar 

  • Robertson BA, Hutto RL (2006) A framework for understanding ecological traps and an evaluation of existing evidence. Ecology 87:1075–1085

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Royer RA, Austin JE, Newton WE (1998) Checklist and “Pollard walk” butterfly survey methods on public lands. Am Midl Nat 140:358–371

    Google Scholar 

  • SAS (2017) JMP 12.0.1. SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC

  • Schlicht DW, Downey JC, Nekola JC (2007) The butterflies of Iowa. University of Iowa Press, Iowa City

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott JA (1973) Convergence of population biology and adult behaviour in two sympatric butterflies, Neominois ridingsii (Papilionoidea: Nymphalidae) and Amblyscirtes simius (Hesperioidea: Hesperiidae). J Anim Ecol 42:663–672

    Google Scholar 

  • Shepherd S, Debinski DM (2005) Evaluation of isolated and integrated prairie reconstructions as habitat for prairie butterflies. Biol Conserv 126:51–61

    Google Scholar 

  • Shuey J, Szymanski J (2012) Modified Pollard transects do not predict estimated daily population size for the secretive butterfly, Neonympha mitchellii mitchellii French. J Lepid Soc 66:221–224

    Google Scholar 

  • Stefanescu C, Herrando S, Páramo F (2004) Butterfly species richness in the north-West Mediterranean Basin: the role of natural and human-induced factors. J Biogeogr 31:905–915

    Google Scholar 

  • Stigler SM (1982) Poisson on the Poisson distribution. Stat Prob Letters 1:33–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Swengel SR, Schlicht D, Olsen F, Swengel AB (2011) Declines of prairie butterflies in the midwestern USA. J Insect Conserv 15:327–339

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Dyck H, Van Strien AJ, Maes D, Van Swaay CAM (2009) Declines in common, widespread butterflies in a landscape under intense human use. Conserv Biol 23:957–965

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Van Swaay CAM, Brereton T, Kirkland P, Warren MS (2012) Manual for butterfly monitoring. Report VS2012.010. De Vlinderstichting/Dutch butterfly conservation, butterfly conservation UK and butterfly conservation Europe, Wageningen, the Netherlands

  • Vogel JA, Koford RR, Debinski DM (2010) Direct and indirect responses of tallgrass prairie butterflies to prescribed burning. J Insect Conserv 14:663–677

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagenmakers EJ, Farrell S (2004) AIC model selection using Akaike weights. Psychon Bull Rev 11:192–196

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Warren MS, Hill JK, Thomas JA, Asher J, Fox R, Huntley B, Thomas CD (2001) Rapid responses of British butterflies to opposing forces of climate and habitat change. Nature 414:65–69

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Yahner RH (2001) Butterfly communities in residential landscapes of Central Pennsylvania. Northeast Nat 8:113–118

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Support for this study was provided by Reiman Gardens, the Department of Natural Resource Ecology and Management at Iowa State University, the Iowa Department of Natural Resources, and McIntire-Stennis funds. We thank personnel in the Park and Recreation Departments of the Cities of Ames and Des Moines, and at the Greater Des Moines Botanical Gardens, the Iowa Association of Municipal Utilities, the Nature Conservancy, and Reiman Gardens for allowing access to sites to conduct butterfly surveys. We also thank Julia Schwager, Sarah Rueger, Camille Karnatz, and Stephen Potter for field and laboratory assistance. We appreciate statistical advice from Tyler Harms and additional advice and information provided by Nathan Brockman, Aaron Steil, Kelly Norris, Jim Durbin and Dave Hraha. Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the United States Government.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Natural Resource Ecology and Management, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, 50011, USA

    Bret J. Lang & Jan R. Thompson

  2. Department of Statistics, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, 50011, USA

    Philip M. Dixon

  3. U.S. Geological Survey, Iowa Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Ames, Iowa, 50011, USA

    Robert W. Klaver

  4. Department of Horticulture and Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Organismal Biology, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, 50011, USA

    Mark P. Widrlechner

Authors
  1. Bret J. Lang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Philip M. Dixon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Robert W. Klaver
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jan R. Thompson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Mark P. Widrlechner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jan R. Thompson.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 25 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lang, B.J., Dixon, P.M., Klaver, R.W. et al. Characterizing urban butterfly populations: the case for purposive point-count surveys. Urban Ecosyst 22, 1083–1096 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-019-00880-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-019-00880-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation